|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks mojito. |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 08/19/2011 2:21:26 PM PDT by mojito
What ended World War II?
For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.
But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.
On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.
In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Eisenhower too claimed that it was not necessary to drop the bomb as the Japanese were looking to surrender, but come on, we cannot credit the Communists for the defeat of Japan. They just entered the war while the American troops had been fighting for a long time. Also, if the liberals want to play this game on the moral angle of dropping the atom bomb (assuming it was immoral for the sake of argument), what was the party affiliation of the President who decided to drop the bomb over the objections of Eisenhower? Was he a socialist?
Truman would have been impeached if he did not drop the A-bombs, and we suffered massive casualties in an invasion.
The Soviet forces were all "Rock" (a heavy land force, built to fight the German alone) ..
But Japan and her Island home were not Germany
Japan and her Island home were more "Paper" ...
And the US fighting on various fronts in WW2 had to build a balance force of all three, Rock, Paper, Scissors (Army, Navy, Strategic long range Air Forces) To have all the different tools needed in all the very different front's and foes it battled with
Spoke with some of my Mexican friends this weekend. The 1st and 3rd graders are now required to take foreign languages in which languages?
A) English
B) Russian
C) Chinese
If you chose A), you are wrong.
There is lots and lots of historical revisionism on going regarding the magnanimous and worldly powerfulness of Russia throughout the middle Americas.
So you accept the simple fact the Red Army's was going nowhere near Japan unless the US gave then the ride?...
So the US in 1945 OWNED Japan with the only force to be able access to Japan and therefore the US controlled Japan's fate? and the US could do as it willed with Japan? (and with the A bomb to do it will)....so you think Japan didn' know this?
Stalin's attack certainly destroyed any hope to end the conflict on a negotiated basis. According to "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (a recommended book) and other sources, the Japanese had asked the Soviet -- who were not at war with them -- to intercede and ask for an armistice. They wanted to keep the Emperor. Stalin, knowing that, raced to grab a large piece of Asia (China and North Korea notably).
Thus betrayed by the Soviets, Japan lost its last hope for a negociated peace. The atomic carnage was the last drop. On this you are right.
In that sense, yes, the Soviets helped end the war. But they could simply have said "no". Their surprise land grab created conditions for multiple conflicts, past and future. We are still paying for the fateful weakness of Roosevelt against Stalin.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
|
Thanks mojito. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry but that makes no sense on many levels.
Re: El Guettar, German and US forces were pretty much equal strength...as curiously, were the costs of battle. Eachside had about 5000 KIA/WUA, and about 50 tanks destroyed. The British 8th Army, was proximate to the battle, and the Germans were concerned about being outflanked. But perhaps the greatest difference was the commanders..Patton had just taken command, while Rommel was in Germany at the time.
Bastogne, while an incredibly heroic action by lightly armed US troops, isn't, IMHO, a valid argument. The Germans knew they had an incredibly short time window to take the town..it was never an organzied campaign..they just kept throwing in more and more troops and armor in frontal assaults...and once the first one failed, they were committed. Really bad command decisions...the US troops were very brave, and very lucky..
right- but America not seeking justice against Jap war crimes because of the guilt from dropping the A-bombs makes sense on so many levels- lmao...
i can suggest a number of research books to prove my point- i recommend you start with this:
http://www.amazon.com/Unit-731-Testimony-Hal-Gold/dp/4900737399
make sure you read it till the end and follow macarthur’s logic...when you’re done with that let me know and i’ll recommend another...
So let me make sure I’ve got this right.
Victories in battles like Kasserine Pass, where inexperienced American troops were led by incompetent commanders like Fredendall making bad decisions, are signs of German military prowess. It’s okay that Rommel went up against Fredendall. That’s shows how much better German generals were.
On the other hand, victories like El Guettar were not signs of American effectiveness because Patton was so much better than Hans-Jürgen von Arnim. Bastone doesn’t count either despite overwhelming numerical superiority because after all, the Germans were led by commanders making bad decisions.
Is that about right?
Military assets can be directly targeted: hopefully, they can be absolutely obliterated. And that's a pretty broad category, and includes all their logistical areas, the storage, armaments depots, supply, port and transshipment areas, for instance, which would include a big chunk of Hiroshima. And noncombatants deaths which are really collateral -- which happen en passant in the course of taking out militiary targets -- are not considered murder because they are not directly intended. (By definition: that's what "collateral" means.)
It makes a difference because we are humans, and what we honestly "intend" makes all the difference in the world. And in the world to come. People who directly intend to kill noncombatants--- the mother who is mothering, the farmer who is farming, kids who are just kidding around --- are in the same moral category as Anders Breivik.
The distinction is that the A-bomb was developed to be indiscrimiante. It didn't just "happen" to be. The strategic intention was to kill a whole lotta civilians in a way that would be unprecedented and stunning. And then the psycholgical and political shock of it would force the war criminals at the head of the Japanese government to unconditionally surrender.
I think (if I'm understanding him correctly) Mr. Hasegawa's point is that the war criminals at the head of the Japanese government were so depraved, that they actually weren't forced by any concern over massive civilian casualties. They had already lost many hundreds of thousands of civilians in the devastation of Tokyo and dozens of other major cities. The Japanese leadership was brutally willing to sacrifice literally millions more, if ---as they thought --- they could drag things out to the point that the US would accept a negotiated settlement.
But when the USSR entered the war (because of the bombings?) the Japanese leadership realized that "dragging things out" was no longer an option. It was going to have to be unconditional surrender, and they'd rather surrender to the USA than to the USSR, because the USA would treat them more decently.
So Mr. Hasegawa's account (again, as I understand it) is really damning of the Japanese leaderhip who were willing to plunge their own people into a flaming abyss fighting island-by-island and city-by-city rather than surrender; and they capitulated only when they realized that the only alternative was dealing with the USSR, which would have consequences far exceeding what they would face with the USA.
At least, that's my short-version take on it.
Obviously, commanders make a huge difference in any military engagement...a good one can pull out a win..a bad one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory..LH's basic thesis is that the German Army in the west, facing superior forces, overwhelming logistics, and ever increasing IS control of the skies....fighting basically a moving defensive battle..did exceptionally well..
Lok at the Italian campaign, where the Germans used the terrain to impede the US advance for months..
You are quite correct. They were not designed to be indiscriminate. They were designed to burn down Japanese housing which was made of wood and paper rather then factories which were made of stone.
That is also why most of the raids were done at night. More people were at home you see.
The enemy, moreover, has begun to employ a new most cruel bomb, the power which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking toll of many innocent lives.
Imperial Surrender Broadcast
by Emperor Hirohito of Japan
Imperial Surrender Broadcast
by Emperor Hirohito of Japan
The Japanese elites were unconcerned about casualties among the common people (as is common with elites around the world).
If the Soviets conquered Japan, the Russians would exterminate the old elites entirely. The secret police would track down the Japanese elites, kill them and their entire families, like they did with the old Russian nobility and the White Russians. They would need to do this in order to re-form the society along their own lines. Machiavelli noted that authoritarian societies were hard to subvert, but easy to hold once conquered, PROVIDED you kill everybody from the old ruling families.
Excuse me, but what are you saying here? That the firebombings were not intended for mlitary targets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.